[George]

llthomasjr,

You stated:

"I would not make the claim that the KJV translators knew the hebrew language better than Gill. Of coarse they rendered their "version" of the text. Where they better scholars or translators....I think not."

Do you know the number of translators on the AV 1611 translating committee? Do you know their names? Do you have any idea of their training or abilities in languages? - "....I think not." {You said it - not me!}

Why do you judge a matter (and the men on the AV 1611 translating committee), when you obviously don't know very much about them? Hmmm? [Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.]

"Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6."

So - you "cherry-pick" what you will accept from your "final authority" (John Gill) and decide for yourself what you will accept from him as being true and "reject" the rest?

You see - we have a FINAL AUTHORITY {the King James Bible} which we rely on and do not "cherry-pick" only those things that we agree with or understand. Our Bible is our 'FINAL AUTHORITY" in ALL matters of faith and practice!

The question arises in my mind: Why are you here - on a "AV1611 Bible Forum"? If you don't accept what we believe - fine. If you "think" that we don't know what we are talking about - fine. But if you "think" that your sophomoric arguments are going to dissuade a genuine Bible believer from his faith in the King James Bible - you've got another "thought" coming!

Believe what you will. Accept John Gill, Hebrew scholars, or anyone else as your "final authority" (with "reservations" - of course! Since your real "final authority" is really and truly your own "opinions"). But you are going to have to do a whole lot better than you have demonstrated so far on this Forum before anyone is even going to take you seriously.

I always marvel at those people who come to this Forum bent on trying to talk others out of their faith in God's Holy word! Why does it bother you so much that we take God at His word? If we are "wrong" - God will straighten us out {for honoring and glorifying His words}! But if you are "wrong" - you will have spent a portion of your life trying to talk Christians out of their faith in God's word. What do you think that God will SAY about that? Hmmm?

It is obvious to me that you (like many others before you) have come to this Forum - NOT to edify or be edified, but to argue and debate. I would suggest that there are many other Forums out there where you will feel "right at home" amongst many of your kind. Most of the members of this Forum are genuine Bible believers, and as such, when it comes to the issue of the AUTHORITY of the King James Bible we have very little in common with Bible "skeptics".

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Bro. Parrish;14374]I understand exactly what you are saying, you are saying the poor are automatically PRESERVED from generation to generation. In other words, God is forcing them to remain poor, He is preserving them that way. God didn't say that, you did. That is not a Biblical teaching, that is not in the Bible and as I have explained, it's a dangerous teaching for the reasons I already explained. Sorry my friend, I think the entire concept is based on confusion. Diligent already speared this fish, scaled and filleted it on the first page of this thread. But you won't be able to enjoy the "meat of the Word," until you clear those clouds in your head regarding the Word of God.

I don't eat anything people call the "Word of Goid" unless it is in fact such. You have attested it is from Diligent. So I weighed it and found it wanting.

Well, let's be clear: Christ said the first part, but you ADDED the second part. This is simply your attempt to make it say what you want it to say, so it does not say what it means. Many have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem determined to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see this because it is almost always accompanied by confusion and comments like this:

Confusing? Sometimes the truth confuses people. Doesn't it?

And there it is, sadly revealed in the daylight.
The paint has flaked off. We now see the hollow wood of your position has crumbled, and the termites are crawling out in droves.

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away." -- Matthew 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25

I believe the Word of God endureth forever. Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere.

Hi Steve. I don't know if you remember me or not but we meet at Bible.org several months or years ago. Its been so long... I can't remember. Thank you for replying and not simply one to start calling names.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

However John Gill's case in this instance is based on one (somewhat superficial) point only,

"Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine"

I'm quite sure that John Gill was well aware that Aben Ezra was well aware of grammatical gender . So he should have thought a bit more deeply before being dismissive.

Overall this is a very thin reed of rejection and Thomas Strouse and John Hinton have gone into probably the most depth on the grammatical issues, giving multiple reasons, grammatical and contextual, why the gender is masculine and not controlling the translation into the poor rather than the words. And, significantly, giving analagous verse examples, even involving the words of God. Have you read carefully their analyses ? Do you have cogent responses for their and our consideration ?

I don't think Gill was superficially nothing. I disagree strong on many many things Gill wrote but he was never superficial. I don't think you can take a small note in his commentary to mean that he didn't consider Aben Ezra lacking in Hebrew grammar skills. You can be certain his comments was one of great thought. I have never read Hinton or Strouse. If you will supply the links, I'll read through them. Yet, it does not dismiss to the work of others that have done the opposing work to show.....

tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.

.NET Bible

This is witnessed by many scholars and we can review anyone you like. It should be noted that the greek texts of Psalm 12 attest to verse 7 is in reference to verse 5.

The fact that John Gill gave a superficial analysis on this verse does not negate his overall expertise. Gill is to be respected and considered in exegesis and he is generally miles above the modernists in his understanding of the word of God, including the Biblical languages and grammar.

However in this case .. he simply erred.

And you can see by simply reading his section that he did not really tangle with the issues.

I disagree. I think Gill is as qualified as any scholar to attest to the use of the Hebrew text. In the end.... you simply have one scholar against another. You can say that one had his agenda and I can say the other does as well.

The issue is that you will not agree that Gill's comments are a possibility... because.... if they are then you lose what hold you have on what you consider preservation.

Steve....

Will you admit that it is possible that the scripture in verse 7 is talking about the poor?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Confusing? Sometimes the truth confuses people. Doesn't it?

John 14:6 says - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 says - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Corinthians 14:33 says - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

According to the Bible God is Truth, and He is not the author of confusion. If your god is confusing, he's not my God.

The only ones confused by God's truth are those who reject Christ.

George;14376]llthomasjr,

You statedo you know the number of translators on the AV 1611 translating committee? Do you know their names? Do you have any idea of their training or abilities in languages? - "....I think not." {You said it - not me!}

I have read about them. Which book do you say that I should read? That way it will please you that I know what I am talking about..... or maybe that is an impossibility?

So - you "cherry-pick" what you will accept from your "final authority" (John Gill) and decide for yourself what you will accept from him as being true and "reject" the rest?

I weigh what everyman says. The source does not matter. It matters if it is the truth. I believe what the centurion said in...

Mat 27:54 So when the centurion and those with him guarding Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they were greatly afraid, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

even though he wasn't a good source of information....

You see - we have a FINAL AUTHORITY {the King James Bible} which we rely on and do not "cherry-pick" only those things that we agree with or understand. Our Bible is our 'FINAL AUTHORITY" in ALL matters of faith and practice!

There is only One Final Authority. His name is Jesus Christ. He is your Master. Not the KJV.

The question arises in my mind: Why are you here - on a "AV1611 Bible Forum"? If you don't accept what we believe - fine. If you "think" that we don't know what we are talking about - fine. But if you "think" that your sophomoric arguments are going to dissuade a genuine Bible believer from his faith in the King James Bible - you've got another "thought" coming!

I am hear to discuss the truth. Are you threatening me or something?

Believe what you will. Accept John Gill, Hebrew scholars, or anyone else as your "final authority" (with "reservations" - of course! Since your real "final authority" is really and truly your own "opinions"). But you are going to have to do a whole lot better than you have demonstrated so far on this Forum before anyone is even going to take you seriously.

I always marvel at those people who come to this Forum bent on trying to talk others out of their faith in God's Holy word! Why does it bother you so much that we take God at His word? If we are "wrong" - God will straighten us out {for honoring and glorifying His words}! But if you are "wrong" - you will have spent a portion of your life trying to talk Christians out of their faith in God's word. What do you think that God will SAY about that? Hmmm?

If you are wrong you have made a lie the truth. Don't you see the danger in such? God is going to straighten everyone out. That neither helps your or me.

It is obvious to me that you (like many others before you) have come to this Forum - NOT to edify or be edified, but to argue and debate. I would suggest that there are many other Forums out there where you will feel "right at home" amongst many of your kind. Most of the members of this Forum are genuine Bible believers, and as such, when it comes to the issue of the AUTHORITY of the King James Bible we have very little in common with Bible "skeptics".

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

The truth edifies doesn't it? That is what I am here to seek. Certainly you haven't arrived in so much your stand can't take the test of discussion?

Originally Posted by Josh

John 14:6 says - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 says - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Corinthians 14:33 says - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

According to the Bible God is Truth, and He is not the author of confusion. If your god is confusing, he's not my God.

The only ones confused by God's truth are those who reject Christ.

I say Amen about the truth confusing the lost.....

Who was Jesus talking to in John 14? Lost people or His Own. They seems pretty confused to me....

God wasn't the author of the confusion at Corinth.... but he certainly was the author of confusion at Babel wasn't He?

Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

I would like for someone to tell me why Mar 14:7, John 12:8, and Mat 26:11 does not mean that poor extend through all generations?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

I don't think Gill was superficially nothing. I disagree strong on many many things Gill wrote but he was never superficial.

98% of the time Gill was not superficial in what he wrote, he was far more thorough than most commentators. A number of times he slips up. Luke 3:36 is a good example of where he took a strange, unbalanced stance (as I recall) and with a spot of effort I could probably give a number of examples. An expert like Gill would know for sure that grammatical gender agreement is not anything like an iron-clad controlling factor in complex verses. John Gill may have thought deeply on this verse, however he wrote superficially.

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

I have never read Hinton or Strouse. If you will supply the links, I'll read through them.

Thomas Strouse and John Hinton sections I will try to give you when I am home tonight. They actually emphasize different yet complementary aspects of the grammar.

btw, My view of the writings of Daniel Wallace on Bible issues is quite low and frequently his 'logic' is abysmal. He appears to be controlled by forces that make him fight the purity of the word of God, whether it is "strain at a gnat" or the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark or other. If you want to give his writing to show a grammatical factoid, fine, however beyond that .... expect very, very little.

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

It should be noted that the greek texts of Psalm 12 attest to verse 7 is in reference to verse 5..

With its own oddball language, preserving "us". Thus of virtually no evidentiary value whatsoever.

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

The issue is that you will not agree that Gill's comments are a possibility... because.... if they are then you lose what hold you have on what you consider preservation.

This is the ho-hum circularity argument reduxified. Actually I came to my understanding of the purity of the King James Bible precisely by a process that included studying the details of many verses like Psalm 12. Leaving my previous positions when I saw how excellent was the majestic text and scholarship. btw, I wrote a little post upthread highlighting the chapter contextual issues that may be helpful.

In the not-to-distant past I used to allow for a secondary meaning of preserving of people, the more I study and understand the verse, the more I question whether that is really sensible at all, except pehaps in a midrashic strectch. (See my post above for the one main reason why.)

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Will you admit that it is possible that the scripture in verse 7 is talking about the poor?

See right above.
(I generally write my dialogue posts while doing a vertical read.)

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

I believe the Word of God endureth forever. Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere.

"the bible" ?

So please share with us what is "the bible" that you read or know of (if it is in a foreign or difficult or archaic language) where the "Word of God endureth forever".

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

"There is only One Final Authority. His name is Jesus Christ. He is your Master. Not the KJV."

"Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere."

LOL, wow Ruckman really hit the nail on the head when he described you perfectly in his first three points. See below, have a look in the mirror my man...

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT
by Peter Ruckman

1. "There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God."

2. "Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled."

3. "Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR."

llthomasjr: The strings on your puppet show have been revealed.
You may want to choose your words carefully, I can tell you people who try to spread your snake oil are not tolerated very well on this site. It isn't that we don't like you personally, but your doctrine is usually treated like poop in the swimming pool around here.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

I would like for someone to tell me why Mar 14:7, John 12:8, and Mat 26:11 does not mean that poor extend through all generations?

Are the poor and the needy (you left them out) "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times". Is that your understanding of the Biblical teaching ?

Are they preserved "from this generation for ever" unto eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ ? Are some "preserved" unto damnation and separation from God ? Would that be Biblical preservation ? Is each individual and generation passing away, to be replaced with new individuals and generations.

Now, can you allow that the words of God could be purified and preserved from this generation for ever ? Endureth forever. It looks above that you agree that this is true Bible, yet are you adamant that this is not the teaching of Psalm 12 ? Very curious. While you have to do an exegetical flying leap to try to convince someone that God's "preservation" and purification is only the poor (and please don't ferget the needy, they should not be cast aside for the poor) not the words of God.

Simply because John Gill or Daniel Wallace tells you there is a grammatical gender issue, for that reason you are sure that the word of God is not preserved in Psalm 12 ? Even after looking at the whole verse in context (see page 1 of this thread). Or are you concerned that the King James Bible might have this true and right and that is what a smidgen discomfiting ?

Now, you say you believe the word of God is preserved, taught elsewhere in the Bible. What are your favorite verses for teaching your view that the word of God "endureth forever" and "lives forever" ? Please share with us the source of this belief and how you express it from the word of God.

And how do you know the verses you share are themselves pure -- if you do not recognize the pure Bible anywhere in the world today ? Could they be mistranslations or redactions or interpolations or other smasheroos ?

Shalom,
Steven